Tag Archives: cool links

Eaves.ca Blogging Moment #8 (2009 Edition): Blogging leads to Book Chapters!

Back in 2007 I published a list of top ten blogging moments – times I felt blogging resulted in something fun or interesting. I got numerous notes from friends who found it fun to read (though some were not fans) so I’m giving it another go. Even without these moments it has been rewarding, but it is nice to reflect on them to understand why spending so many hours, often late at night, trying to post 4 times a week can give you something back that no paycheck can offer. Moreover, this is a chance to celebrate some good fortune and link to people who’ve made this project a little more fun. So here we go…

Eaves.ca Blogging Moment #8 (2009 Edition): Blogging leads to Book Chapters!

First, my blogging, writing, work, consulting and public speaking on public service sector renewal earns me the opportunity to write a chapter in O’Reilly Media’s upcoming book on Open Government.

Needless to say, I’m excited.

(Shameless plug within a shameless list: I’ll be giving a talk about open, technology social change and the future of government, some of the themes covered in the chapter, at the Ontario College of Art and Design on January 14th. Details and tickets here, 200 gone, about 60 left.)

Second, after passing it under the noses of numerous magazine editors who expressed interest but ultimately pass it up, Taylor and I decide to simply publish Missing The Link: Why Old Media still doesn’t get the Internet as a website.

The sad news: We wrote it 3 years ago And I think it is just as relevant today.

The good news: Looks like an academic publisher is very interested and will be turning it a chapter for a book. Hurray for just putting stuff out there.

Eaves.ca Blogging Moment #9 (2009 Edition): Rankings!

2 Replies

Eaves.ca Blogging Moment #9 (2009 Edition): Rankings!

Eaves.ca gets ranked as the 5th most popular Canadian political blog on a Dime a Dozen‘s blog. I’m fairly certain that some of the other blogs lower on the list may get more traffic, but then maybe not… Either way, it was nice to be mentioned.

I’ve noticed I’ve dropped off the list – it may be that the curator has decided my blog isn’t sufficiently political (I do blog about many things) since my Google juice (page rank of 6) and Alexa ranking (444,095) should have had me in 5 place again…. either way it nice to make anyone’s list.

Also nice was that someone nominated me for a Canadian Blog Award. I don’t know who it was, but thank you! Both the top 25 list and the awards take a lot of work so definitely want to send out a thank you to the curators of both for simply keeping them up regardless of whether I’m on them or not.

This stuff aside, my traffic has been up markedly this year, which has been nice. So mostly, I want to thank readers for simply showing up.

My Unfinished Business Talk in Toronto

3 Replies

ocad logo I’m really pleased to share that I’ll be giving a talk at the Ontario College of Art & Design this January 14th, 2010. The talk is one I’ve been giving for government officials a fair bit of late – it is on how technology, open methodologies and social change are creating powerful pressures for reform within our government bureaucracies. The ideas in it also form the basis of a chapter I’ve written for the upcoming O’Reilly Media book on Open Government due out in January (in the US, assuming here in Canada too – more on this in a later post).

I completely thrilled to be giving a talk at OCAD and especially want to thank Michael Anton Dila for making this all happen. It was his idea, and he pushed me to make it happen. It is especially of Michael and OCAD since they have kept the talk free and open to the public.

The talk details are below and you can register here. More exciting has been the interest in the talk – I saw that 100 tickets disappeared in the first 4 hours yesterday – people care about government and policy!

We have much unfinished business with our government – look forward to digging into it.

ABOUT UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The Unfinished Lecture is a monthly event hosted by the Strategic Innovation Lab at OCAD and sponsored by Torch Partnership. Part of the Unfinished Business initiative, the lectures are intended to generate an open conversation about strategic innovation in the business and design of commercial enterprises and public organizations.

AFTER THE COLLAPSE: Technology, Open and the Future of Government

What do Facebook, 911 and NASA all have in common? They all offer us a window into how our industrial era government may be redesigned for the digital age. In this lecture David Eaves will look at how open methodologies, technology and social change is reshaping the way public service and policy development will be organized and delivered in the future: more distributed, adaptive and useful to an increasingly tech savvy public. Whether a interested designer, a disruptive programmer, a restless public servant or a curious citizen David will push your thinking on what the future has in store for the one institution we all rely on: Government.

As a closing remark, I’d also like to thank Health Canada & Samara, both of who asked me to put my thoughts on this subject together into a single talk.

Hope to see you in Toronto.

Articles I'm Digesting 15/12/2009

4 Replies

Here are some pieces I’ve been reading of late:

You Can’t Handle the Truth by Mark Pothier in the Boston Globe

A great piece about how the classification of drugs used by most Western countries is completely divorced from how much harm those drugs cause. This isn’t surprising, but as the evidence begins to mount regarding which drugs are actually harmful (read alcohol, cocaine or heroine) versus those which are significantly less harmful (read Ecstasy or LSD) the question will increasingly emerge – will science ever inform our policies around managing these types of substances. Indeed, it is disturbing (and, er… sobering) to once again see the only substance I use the list – alcohol – be put in such a stark and negative light.

At some point a real conversation about drugs is going to occur in the United States – I just hope it is sooner rather than later as it will have a profound effect on effectively we can deal with the tragic situation we have around substance abuse this side of the border.

Fla. Court Tells Judges and Lawyers to “Unfriend” Each Other (the AP)

Always fascinating to see how different fields respond to social networking. In this case a Florida…

…committee ruled Nov. 17 that online “friendships” could create the impression that lawyers are in a special position to influence their judge friends.

This is a great example of how social networking can cause some professions to actually become less transparent and, I would argue, harms the long term credibility of the institution. Notice here that the committee isn’t ruling that judges and lawyers can’t be friends, they are ruling that it would be harmful if the public could see that they are friends. So, in essence, if being a friend compromises the judgment of a judge, we solve that by preventing the public from seeing that the conflict could exist, rather than dealing with the conflict. Weird.

The last line is priceless:

McGrady, who is sending a copy of the ruling to the 69 judges in his circuit, said this potential conflict of interest is why he doesn’t have a Facebook page.

“If somebody’s my friend, I’ll call them on the phone,” he said, chuckling.

Errr, right. Good to keep it all in the old boys network where those on the inside know where the conflict may lie, but there is not digital trail or map that might allow the public to be better informed… Oh, and you’re the last generation that will only “pick up the phone” so this solution has, at best, a 20 year shelf life to it.

The Killer App of 1900 by Glenn Fleishman in Publicola

As some readers know, I’m a big fan of historical examples that show we are experiencing similar pressures, transformations, evolutions as experienced in the past. Part of it is the historian in me, part of it is how it helps ease the minds of those concerned or intimidated by change. There are, occasionally, genuinely new things that appear under the sun – but often those of us interested in technology and social change are too quick to scream “This is new! It changes everything!” Moreover, it does a disservice to our efforts often making people more skeptical, resistant and generally conservative towards the perceived change. Still more importantly, the past often sheds light on how power and influence created by a new technology or system may diffuse itself – who will be the winners/losers and the resisters.

In this context this article is a priceless example of the type of writing I wish I did more of.

The Score: Advice to Young Composers by Annie Gosfield in the New York Times

While written as sounds advice for composers, this is (as the friend who sent it to me said) sounds advice for policy wonks or, in my opinion, bloggers as well. (It’s actually just sounds advice for life).

A couple of credos in the piece that I hope my work, and this blog lives by:

Take your work seriously, but don’t take yourself too seriously: Hope that is evident in my writing style.

Be willing to put yourself and your music on the line: Try to do that everyday here on the blog.

Don’t fear rejection: Something a blog is really good at teaching you.

A couple of credos in the piece I know I struggle with:

Don’t assume you know what’s accessible to the audience and what isn’t: Although counter to what the piece says, I occasionally run into a friend who says “I had NO idea what you were talking about in X blog post.” It is crushing to hear – but also really good. I do want to challenge readers but I also want to be accessible. Do let me know if I ever get to a place where a newbie is going to be totally lost.

Details count: So, er, anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that I have the occasional typo in a post, here or there… Blogging longish pieces four times a week is draining, and so I don’t proof as much as I could (plus it is hard to see one’s own errors). But I could do better.

Hope you enjoy these pieces as much as I did!

Some Thoughts on the Walrus Response

9 Replies

Here is a response to Jeremy Keehn (Senior Editor at the Walrus) thoughtful response to my post The Walrus, Fair Dealing, and the Culture of Journalism this morning.

A few leading points.

1) I’d like to echo Jeremy’s request, if there is a literary-loving Web 2.0 billionaire out there interested in endowing the Walrus, please click here.

2) While my original post refers to The Walrus, I definitely want to be clear – the challenge of not participating in the online link economy is endemic among main stream media publishers generally. Most main stream media never link away from their site (except, oddly, on their “blogs” which are somehow treated differently…)

At the risk of misrepresenting Jeremy (not my intention) I’m going to edit his piece down so as to respond to some specific arguments as to why the Walrus doesn’t link or cite in print. Worse still, I may make a suggestion or two.

First, in print:

It was more a question of how including that information would affect the flow of the narrative, and what readers needed to know for the quotation to have its intended effect. Insofar as I was making a conscious decision as an editor, I would have been asking myself whether mentioning eaves.ca bolstered the authority of the quotation or added narrative value. Ultimately, I concluded that David’s credentials were all readers needed to know. In hindsight, I might have chosen otherwise, in part because the quotation wasn’t a spoken one, and in part because this is a rare instance where the source actually ended up caring.

This I completely get. It is important that the piece read easily. Reading this I see how much the web has changed how I read – I look for “links” now even when reading a print edition of something. (Wow it is hard to have this discussion without sounding ungrateful for the quote – hoping that is still coming through – this is a discussion about the culture of journalism as it plays at out that Walrus, not about the quality or intentions of the Walrus)

Online linking:

David also asks in his post why The Walrus hasn’t linked to his blog in the online version of the story. “When The Walrus doesn’t link to others, it is a policy decision,” he writes. “They believe in the myth that they need to keep people on their website — which means they also believe in keeping their readers away from the very material that makes their stories interesting.”

I (guiltily) jumped to a conclusion there – should have led with more inquiry. Jeremy explains that this is because:

We don’t go in and insert links into our magazine pieces because we don’t have the resources, and because the decisions about what and where to link would be difficult and time-consuming to navigate, especially given that we rely on freelance writers, who might have opinions about what should be linked to or not. It’s certainly not policy.

However, this is where things become a little harder for me to decipher.

On the one hand the no-linking at the Walrus seems to be due to limited resources (this I understand and respect). However, tracking down and inserting the links into my blog for the webpages the Walrus piece references took me 45 minutes – and that was without the benefit of having the author on hand who mostly likely has them in their notes. An intern could find and insert the links into a piece in 30 minutes. This may still be too onerous but the benefit to readers feels significant. But this calculus becomes even easier if the Walrus simply asked authors to supply the links (the task would then drop to mere minutes). Moreover, the costs of consistency feel pretty low. People are unlikely to be upset of The Walrus over linking… they’ll just not click on them. Plus, The Walrus’s authors probably have the best sense of what is interesting and should be linked to… why not simply trust them?

On the other hand, the above sentence hints that the no-linking is also due to the fact that getting a clear consistent policy would be difficult – especially with so many freelance writers in play. I read this as saying that The Walrus is claiming it is better off not linking than having potentially inconsistent linking. Why not start simple with bare bones policy: Every time The Walrus quotes someone, and that quotation is available from an original source online, the author should endeavor to link to it. The great thing about being online is different than print. Omissions are easy and quick to fix. If the author misses some link, an intrepid reader may email The Walrus the link (especially if you ask them to) at which point an intern could add it.

There are advantages to this. Over time, by looking at The Walrus’s web stats the editorial staff will see what their readers click on, and so what they find useful and be sure to include more of those types of links in the future. The value add for readers might become significant, At the moment, the Walrus has no idea what its readers find interesting in the pieces they read other than what they say in comments (and far, far fewer people comment than click on links they like).

Finally, this should be applauded but is not a defense:

We do plenty of linking on our blogs, and the magazine’s Twitter feed (not to mention my own) is generally abuzz with links to and from other media.

Two thoughts: First what is the policy around linking on The Walrus blogs? And providing links in Twitter is great (I do like how The Walrus twitter account points to interesting pieces everywhere). The point here is that (online) readers have a world to explore in every article The Walrus publishes – if they are given a chance to explore it through hyperlinks – hyperlinks that are embedded in the text where their mice and eyes are at the moment of reading.

オープンデータの3つの規則

1 Reply

[The following is a Japanese Translation of this post – I’ll be publishing a different language each day this week.]

私はここ数年来、開かれた政府の仕事に深く関わってきた。具体的には政府のデータの公開情報を市民の誰もが活用ができるようにと主張してきた。私が興味を持ったことを書いてみると、公開情報と技術と世代の変化が政府を変えて行くと言うことだ。
今年の初めに、バンクーバーの市長と市議会にオープンモーション（スタッフの間ではOpen 3と呼ばれている）を導入することを助言し始め、カナダで最初にバンクーバー市のオープンデータポータルを作り出した。最近では、オーストラリア政府が私に国際リファレンスグループのための政府2.0特別専門委員会に.出席するよう依頼してきた。

開かれた政府の仕事は広範囲にわたるが、最近の私の仕事では公開データにおいて、結局、何が必要か何を求めているのかの本質を見極めることを強く求められた。カナダ政府情報機関の委員が行ったデジタル時代のRight to Know 週間において、結果的には議会の討論中に私の努力したことが出席者と共有された。：

政府公開データの3つの規則

もし、スパイダーやインデックスがなければ利用できない。

もし、読めない形式だったら活用できない。

もし、法律の枠組みにおいて、許可がなければ使用できない。

例えば、（1）　基本的なことを言うと、もしC（または他の検索エンジン）が見つからなければ、殆どの市民がそのことを調べることができない。だから、それが可能な、あらゆる検索エンジンスパイダーを利用したほうがいい。

データを見つけた後、（2）で言っていることは、そのデータが使えることが必要である。役立つフォームで引き出したりダウンロードしたりする必要がある。（例えば、API、サブスクリプションフィード、書類）グーグルマップや他のデータセットを使ったり、オープンオフィースで分析したり、標準のものを変換したり、必要なプログラムを使えることが必要である。
データーを自由に使ったりできない人は討論から外される。

最終的にデータが見つかって使えても、（3）の関係で、作ったものを共有したり、他の人を動員したり、新しいサービスや興味あることを供給する法律的な許可が必要と言う著作権の問題が生じてくる。情報は自由に使用できるライセンスが必要であるが、理想を言えば、全くライセンスがないほうが良く、著作権に触れない政府のデータがあれば一番良い。

データを見つけて使って、共有することが私たちの望んでいることである。

もちろん、インターネットの検索をすると他人も同じように考えていたことが分かる。
おそらくCIOレベルや低レベルの会話には適した８つの重要なオープンガーバメントデータがあるが、政治家（あるいは副大臣、政府長官、最高経営者）に話す時には、以上の３つが基本になっていることが分かった。それは、覚えておくべき必要とされる本質的な事項である。

This Japanese translation was made possible thanks to the generous volunteer work of Tosh Nagashima at the Space-Time Research company in Australia. The team there was amazing in providing a number of translations – I am very much in their debt.

Drie Regels voor Open Overheidsdata

2 Replies

The following is a Dutch Translation of this post – I’ll be publishing a different language each day this week.

In de afgelopen jaren ben ik in toenemende mate betrokken geworden bij de Open Overheid beweging en in het bijzonder kom ik op voor Open Data, het beschikbaar maken van informatie die de overheid verzamelt en creëert zodat burgers de informatie kunnen analyseren, gebruiken en hergebruiken voor nieuwe doelen. Mijn interesse in dit onderwerp is een gevolg dat ik veel geschreven en werk heb verricht hoe technologie, open systemen en de generatie overgang de overheid zullen veranderen. Begin dit jaar ben ik begonnen met het adviseren van de burgemeester en gemeenteraad van de stad Vancouver om de Open Motie aan te nemen (ook wel Open3 genoemd) en het ontwikkelen van Vancouver’s Open Data portaal, de eerste gemeentelijk open data portaal in Canada. Recentelijk ben ik gevraagd door de Australische overheid om deel te nemen aan de International Reference Group voor haar Overheid 2.0 Taskforce.

Uiteraard is de Open Overheid beweging behoorlijk breed, maar in mijn meer recente werk heb ik getracht om de kern van Open Data te destilleren uit deze bredere beweging. Wat hebben we nu echt nodig en vragen we dat wel? Tijdens de Conferentie voor Parlementariërs: Transparantie in het Digitale Tijdperk “Right to Know Week” panel discussie – georganiseerd door het Office of the Information Commissioner – , introduceerde ik drie regels voor Open Overheidsdata.

Drie Regels voor Open Overheidsdata

Als data niet kan worden gevonden of doorzoekbaar gemaakt, dan bestaat het niet

Als data niet beschikbaar is in een open en leesbare vorm voor computers, dan zal het burgers niet uitnodigen om er mee aan de slag te gaan.

Als er geen juridisch raamwerk is dat toestaat om de data te hergebruiken, dan zal het burgers niet empoweren.

Een korte toelichting, (1) betekent eigenlijk: kan ik het vinden? Wanneer Google (en elke andere zoekmachine) informatie niet kan vinden, dan zal dat voor de meeste burgers betekenen dat de informatie niet bestaat. Dus het is van cruciaal belang dat je ervoor zorgt dat de data geoptimaliseerd is om te worden geïndexeerd door allerlei soorten zoekmachines.

Als ik de data heb gevonden, dan richt Regel (2) zich op het bruikbaar maken van de data. Ik moet met de data kunnen spelen. Dat betekent dat ik in staat moet zijn om de data te downloaden in een eenvoudig en bruikbaar formaat (zoals een API, een RSS feed of een bestand met toelichting). Burgers hebben data nodig dat ze in staat stelt om een mash-up te maken met Google Maps of andere websites, of te analyseren in OpenOffice of het te converteren naar een bestandsformaat of programma naar eigen inzicht. Burgers die niet kunnen spelen met informatie zijn burgers die niet meedoen aan het debat .

Uiteindelijk, zelfs wanneer ik de data kan vinden en er mee kan spelen, dan benadrukt Regel (3) dat ik een juridisch raamwerk nodig heb dat mij toestaat om te delen wat ik heb gemaakt, dat ik andere burgers mag uitnodigen en organiseren om te participeren, er een nieuwe dienst om heen kan bouwen of dat ik gewoon interessante feiten mag benadrukken. Dit betekent dat de licentie behorende tot de informatie en data zo min mogelijk restricties oplegt aan het gebruik, idealiter komt wordt overheidsdata beschikbaar gesteld aan het publieke domein. De beste overheidsdata en informatie is welke die niet beschermd is door auteursrechten. Databestanden die gelicenseerd zijn op een wijze dat het burgers onmogelijk wordt gemaakt om hun werk te delen, maakt burgers monddood en leidt tot censurering.

Zoeken, spelen, en delen. Dat is wat wij willen.

Een snelle zoektocht op het Internet laat zien dat andere mensen ook hebben nagedacht over dit onderwerp. Er is een uitstekend stuk over 8 Principes van Open Overheidsdata die meer gedetailleerd zijn, en misschien zelfs beter, zeker voor discussies op CIO niveau. Maar voordat we gaan praten met politici (of senior ambtenaren en CEO’s) en net zoals de mensen aanwezig bij de conferentie vorige maanden, vond ik de eenvoud van drie belangrijker: het zijn drie simpele regels die iedereen makkelijk kan onthouden.

This Dutch translation was made possible due to the generous work of Diederik van Lieree.

Три закона Oткрытой базы данных:

2 Replies

[The following is a Russian Translation of this post – I’m doing a different language each day this week.]

На протяжение последних лет я все больше и больше был вовлечен в движение за поддержку «открытого правительства» или если говорить более конкретно выступал в защиту «открых данных», т.е. свободный доступ населения к информации которая формируется и публикуется государством. Информация, которую любой человек может проанализировать и использовать в своих целях. Развитию моего интереса к этой сфере послужили моя работа которую я провел и статьи написаные мной в области того как технология, открытые системы и смена поколений преобразуют правительство. В начале года я начал проводить консультации с Мэром и Советом Города Ванкувера с целью оказания помощи по внедрению «Открытоко Движения» (или как его стали называть – «Доступ3») и создания Ванкуверского открытого портала данных, первый областной открытый портал данных в Канаде. В более недавнем прошлом, австралийское правительство попросило меня возглавить Международную Справочную Группу для целевой группы Правительства 2.0.

Ясно что движение открытого правительства понятие довольно обширное, но моя недавняя работа убедила меня попытаться определить часть этого движения – идею открытых данных. Что же в конечном счете нам необходимо и чего конкретно мы хотим? Позже, я выступил перед дискусионной комисией на Конференции для парламентариев под названием «Прозрачность в эпоху цифровых технологий и Неделя Права на Информацию» организованную канадским кабинетом уполномоченного по обеспечению инормационной даты. Там я поделился своей наиболее аккуратной версией по определению идеи: “Три закона открытых государственных информационных данных”
Три закона открытых государственных информационных данных:

1. Если она не будет снабжена указателем,т.е проиндексирована или сплетена она не будет существовать
2. Если она не доступнa в открытом формате и в формате, доступным компьютерной програме – она не может привлечь массы
3. Елси правовые рамки не позволяют ее использования в новых целях, то она не может вдохновлять

Для пояснения (1) в принципе значит: Могу ли я ее найти — Если Google и другие поисковые программы не могут найти ее, то по существу она не существует для большенства граждан.Значит дата должна быть оптимизирована, проиндексирована и сплетена для поиска паутинных поисковых систем.

После того как я нашел ее, (2) указывает что она должна быть полезной, и предоставлять возможность дальнейшего использования и манипулирования. Следовательно, мне необходимо загрузить ее в подходящем формате (например, через интерфэйс, или как подписку на файлы, или документрированый файл). Населению нужна дата в формате который даст им возможность совместить ее с Google Maps и другими составами данных, анализировать ее в Open Office или конвертировать ее в подходящий формат и использовать ее в любой другой программе. Население которое не может использовать и играть с информацией- не вовлечено или плохо представлено в дискуционых вопросах.

В заключении, даже если я могу найти эту информацию использовать, (3) подчеркивает тот факт что я нуждаюсь в законодательном уставе, которое позволит мне обмениваться тем что я создал, чтобы привлечь других, предоставить новый сервис или просто продемонстрировать интересный факт. Это значит что информация и база данных должна быть лицензирована и быть доступна для как можно более свободного пользования или в идеальном случае, не иметь ни каких лицензий вообще. Самый лучший правительственный состав данных и информации это тот который не защищен авторским правом. Состав данных который лицензирован в таком виде который препятствуют открытому распостронению обработаных данных, не может считаться удовлетворительным. Такой подход не вдохновляет граждан страны, а только способствует молчанию и цензуре.

Возможность Найти, Использовать и Распространить – вот чего мы хотим.

Конечно, быстрый просмотр Интернета показал, что другие также думают об этом.Существует превосходныe 8 принципов открытого государственного состава данных которые более подробны и возможно лучше подходят для началъственного уровня и ниже. Но, разговаривая с политиками (или заместителями министра, секретарями кабинета или начальниками администраций) я нахожу простота этих трех принципов более доступна для понимания, такой простой список им легче запомнить и требовать у правительства

This Russian translation was made possible thanks to the generous volunteer work of Lina Lebon at the Space-Time Research company in Australia. The team there was amazing in providing a number of translations – I am very much in their debt.

开放数据的三个定律

1 Reply

[The following is a Chinese Translation of this post – I’m doing a different language each day this week.]

开放数据的三个定律：在过去的三年中，笔者逐步深入参与到政府部门的政务公开领域—更准确的说是开放数据领域，将政府部门收集和生成的数据向普通用户免费开放，并根据各自需求进行分析，加工和使用。笔者在这方面的兴趣主要来自于之前对“技术，开放系统及其更新换代是如何对政务工作产生影响的”课题的工作及写作经历。今年早些时候我开始向温哥华市长及议会提供咨询服务，帮助他们通过政务公开的动议（政府职员称之为“open3”），并建立开放数据门户，使之成为加拿大史上第一个市政开放数据门户。近期，澳大利亚政府也邀请我加入其政务2.0工程的国际咨询专家组。

显而易见，政务公开涉及面广，但最近的工作促使笔者尝试揭开其中开放数据方面的本质。归根结底，我们到底需要什么，而又要求得到什么？因此，当笔者出席一个由加拿大政府信息委员会办公室组织的为期一周面向议会成员，主题为“数字时代知情权的透明度”的交流活动中，与在座人士分享了这方面工作的最新进展：政务数据开放的三个定律。

政务数据开放的三个定律：
1，如果数据不能被链接或索引，数据就是不存在的
2，如果数据不是开放并且由机器可读的格式，数据就是不可使用的
3，如果一个合法平台不允许改变数据用途，数据就是未授权使用的

更详细的说，定律一指：数据能否被用户找到？如果用谷歌（或是其他搜索引擎）不能检索到，该数据对绝大多数普通用户在本质上就是不存在的。因此，数据提供方必须优化系统，以使数据能被各类的搜索引擎检索到。

当用户取得数据后，定律二强调要让数据变得有用，用户必须能操作该数据。因而，用户需要能够提取数据或下载为一个实用的格式（例如：一个应用程序编程接口，订阅数据或是资料文件）。用户需要获取特定格式的数据以使他们能将之与谷歌地图或其他数据合成呈现，用Open Office阅读分析数据，或是进一步转换为其他应用程序能够接受的格式。如果在数据交流过程中用户不能使用并操作信息，该用户将在此过程中被边缘化。

最后，当用户能够获取并使用数据后，定律三强调用户需要一个合法的平台使之能够共享自己的成果，并发动其他的用户，提供新的服务或是呈现相关主题数据。这就意味着信息和数据的授权应当允许最大限度的自由，或是更加理想化的，无需授权。最好的政务信息和数据是无需进行版权保护的。带有授权信息并有意阻止用户间共享的数据缺乏效用，无法传播且备受诟病。

获取，使用数据，并共享成果。这是广大用户的需求。

当然，浏览互联网读者还能够发现其他相关的研究成果。颇为出众的一篇题为政务数据开放的8个原则，其中讨论了更多细节，更适合信息主管及其下属阅读。但如果对象是政治人物（分管总理，内阁部长或是执行主管），我发现前文三个定律更加简单实用，也更容易引起听众共鸣。

This Chinese translation was made possible thanks to the generous volunteer work of WeiWie Ding at the Space-Time Research company in Australia. The team there was amazing in providing a number of translations – I am very much in their debt.

Articles I'm Digesting 16-11-2009

7 Replies

BC Budget Visualizations – DIY Transparency & Local Government by Jer (via David Ascher)

When I think of Open Data many ideas come to mind. Applications like Vantrash were an early success, but what Jer has done with the BC Government’s Budget is another piece I hope will emerge: data that is transformed into educative and compelling graphics that border on art. On the CBC Power & Politics last week (1:50:36) I made this my “blog of the week.” And as I said on the show, if the Globe and Mail wants to compete with the New York Times and its cool multimedia work (like this piece on the Berlin Wall), get a guy like Jer on contract,

The Bitch is Back by Andrew Corsello (via David Hume)

A scathing piece in GQ magazine (have I ever read a GQ magazine article before?) about Ayn Rand. It pretty much sums up everything you’ve ever thought about Ayn Rand but were too polite to say. Bonus points go to this piece for the great Hitchens quote:

“as a fiction writer, she’s absurd,” says author and Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, who is arguably the most opinionated Homo sapiens since Rand herself. “But if you’re young and not particularly wanted and not particularly brilliant, reading Atlas Shrugged provides all the feelings of compensation one might need for any period of terrifying inadequacy.”

Oh, and just in case those on the left are starting to feel smug about the Right’s tautological hero and her prescribes a path to superiority, I caution you to pause. It is still early days but I’m beginning to feel like Ken Wilbur is the Left’s emerging Ayn Rand and Integral Theory is its Objectivism. The material cannot be tested or proven, its lengthy and inaccessible, its definitely uncompromising, and for more extreme adherents, both theories lay out a theory of hierarchical development that I fear allow those at the “top” to be, at best, paternalistic and at worst, contemptuous, to those below.

Can D.I.Y. Supplant the First-Person Shooter? by Joshuah Bearman (via Lauren Bacon)

For those who believe video games could be art. More interestingly, it hints at how the future of entertainment may either be flatter than we thought, or the long tail of the market could be richer than many supposed. Either way, the video game is going to play a bigger role in our fragmented culture. Bonus points in this one for money quotes, insights and positive role contributed to the discussion by local boy and video game superstar Clint Hocking.

It’s Time to Rethink Forest Management: More Subsidies Will Not Succeed by Susanne Ivey-Cook

I’m a policy wonk. And this piece is bang on. It’s long past due that rethink how we allocate and use our forests. These are public owned goods and we need to ensure that they get used in a way that maximizes their value to tax payers and meet our ecological/sustainability goals. Definitely worth the quick read.